Again, I thought it's like mlorrey said, where the mass-energy sum on one part of the reciprocating oscillation stroke is different than the mass-energy sum on the other part of the stroke, so that the resulting imbalance leads to net momentum change.
Quote from: sanman on 05/20/2010 02:06 pmAgain, I thought it's like mlorrey said, where the mass-energy sum on one part of the reciprocating oscillation stroke is different than the mass-energy sum on the other part of the stroke, so that the resulting imbalance leads to net momentum change.So if you were throwing away a part of the mass during 1/2 of the cycle you would generate thrust. I can see how that would work! What is a "mass-energy sum"? How can you add two different quantities (Kg and N-M). Do you really mean Mass X energy? No, that can't be it because kinetic energy = 1/2MV^2 so Mass X energy would be 1/2M^2V^2 (?) What part of this am I missing?
E=m*c^2http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass-energy_equivalenceMass and energy are the same.
QuoteE=m*c^2http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass-energy_equivalenceMass and energy are the same.Mass and energy are equivalent when you have the capability of fusing atoms. Where does that occur in Woodward's device? The OP stated something along the lines of "well we can just add mass and energy ..." I asked "how is that done?" In a nuclear fusion reaction mass is combined with energy being produced as mass is converted into energy. Woodward is a phony. He was been debunked a long time ago.
Mass and energy are equivalent when you have the capability of fusing atoms. Where does that occur in Woodward's device? ... In a nuclear fusion reaction mass is combined with energy being produced as mass is converted into energy.
The OP stated something along the lines of "well we can just add mass and energy ..." I asked "how is that done?"
Woodward is a phony. He was been debunked a long time ago.
...He's far more likely to simply be honestly wrong. ...
As for "debunked", I haven't seen anything remotely conclusive from anybody. Have you? If so, where?
Unfortunately for you
You have to prove a theory is valid and allow others to replicate your results before you can claim it is true.
Until you can do that any of these far-out theories are considered bogus.
Where is the evidence his theory is valid? If his ideas are valid why isn't he flying a spaceship?
If I tell you the sky is green are you going to believe me just because I said it?
The fact is there are a lot of lunatics claiming all kinds effects that violate the laws of physics.
By now others would have replicated his results if there was anything to it.
I don't need to prove his idea is bogus because I know it is.
You need to prove his idea is not if you want to convince me otherwise.
Thruster ideas that require an adjustment to the laws of physics are science fiction. A few years ago NASA blew away a few million dollars on their Breakthrough Physics Program (BPP). NASA has to do this because their mission requires investing in extremely risky ideas. As expected though all that came of this program was a lot of re-hashed science fiction. Bidfield-Brown electrostatic thrusters, Mach effect, Alcuibre (sp?) drives, etc, etc. When you read these papers they all have the required amount of math - lots of partial derivatives, wave functions, -it's all there. The problem is that the underlying assumptions are WRONG. Dressing up bad science with lots of complicated math does not make the bad science correct. All of this defective science has been bouncing around since BPP ended. Any serious researcher can see it is just science fiction. Maybe sometime in the future some of it may work, but no-one knows how that will happen now.If you want to invent something that will change how we go into space I think you have to aim for something that is achievable, given the generally accepted laws of physics. If you are really interested in this field then stop yammering about dead-end non-scientific research and start doing something. Build a lab in your garage. Buy some accelerometers. Do some experiments and be critical of the results. Then, maybe after 5-10 years of that you may have something to talk about. If you are really lucky you will have something but you won't talk about it.
Quote from: GreenGlow on 05/21/2010 04:09 pmThruster ideas that require an adjustment to the laws of physics are science fiction. A few years ago NASA blew away a few million dollars on their Breakthrough Physics Program (BPP). NASA has to do this because their mission requires investing in extremely risky ideas. As expected though all that came of this program was a lot of re-hashed science fiction. Bidfield-Brown electrostatic thrusters, Mach effect, Alcuibre (sp?) drives, etc, etc. When you read these papers they all have the required amount of math - lots of partial derivatives, wave functions, -it's all there. The problem is that the underlying assumptions are WRONG. Dressing up bad science with lots of complicated math does not make the bad science correct. All of this defective science has been bouncing around since BPP ended. Any serious researcher can see it is just science fiction. Maybe sometime in the future some of it may work, but no-one knows how that will happen now.If you want to invent something that will change how we go into space I think you have to aim for something that is achievable, given the generally accepted laws of physics. If you are really interested in this field then stop yammering about dead-end non-scientific research and start doing something. Build a lab in your garage. Buy some accelerometers. Do some experiments and be critical of the results. Then, maybe after 5-10 years of that you may have something to talk about. If you are really lucky you will have something but you won't talk about it.Alcubierre.The "generally accepted laws of physics" as you apparently define them cannot change the way we go into space. That's the tyranny of mass fraction.
As for your generous invitation to do something more than just talk, how about *you* put up or shut up first.
So why don't you build a replica of Woodward's experiment in your garage and show that he's wrong? Look at the ORNL paper critically and see if you can find the errors.Then show how ORNLs results are still valid.
If I tell you the sky is green are you going to believe me just because I said it? The fact is there are a lot of lunatics claiming all kinds effects that violate the laws of physics.
Quote from: GreenGlow on 05/21/2010 07:09 amIf I tell you the sky is green are you going to believe me just because I said it? The fact is there are a lot of lunatics claiming all kinds effects that violate the laws of physics.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_flashhttp://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap040321.htmlAlso worth googling about green rays.cheers, Martin
QuoteAs for your generous invitation to do something more than just talk, how about *you* put up or shut up first.My invitation is for others like you to do something more than talk. I have been dabbling in field propulsion research for almost 10 years now. My garage is filled with curiosities that didn't work. If I had your naivite I would still be trying to make my first idea work.QuoteSo why don't you build a replica of Woodward's experiment in your garage and show that he's wrong? Look at the ORNL paper critically and see if you can find the errors.Then show how ORNLs results are still valid.I am not interested in re-testing failed ideas. That's a .01% proposition. The error is in the initial assumption Woodward and the other lunatics like him start with. It is fringe science pure and simple.
in that case since you've done so much work in the field I'm sure you must be very knowledgeable. Would you mind pointing out what the erroneous assumption is in Woodward's work that makes it fringe?I'm all about determining correct assumptions, not discarding a theory because the result seems incredible.